Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Vera Neplenbroek

dblp:379/6883 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 43% Language models and text generation · 40% Representation and self-supervised learning · 17%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
1.922026
One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026
Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit Personalization · EMNLP 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model › large language model adaptation
personalization
1.012026
One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › prompting
persona prompting
1.012026
One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › embedding learning › entity representation learning
user embedding
0.912025
Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit Personalization · EMNLP 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.312025
Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit Personalization · EMNLP 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

prompt variation analysis · 1.0representation steering · 0.9linear probe · 0.9controlled synthetic conversation · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization
abstract
Personalization of LLMs by sociodemographic subgroup often improves user experience, but can also introduce or amplify biases and unfair outcomes across groups.Prior work has employed so-called personas, sociodemographic user attributes conveyed to a model, to study bias in LLMs by relying on a single cue to prompt a persona, such as user names or explicit attribute mentions.This disregards LLM sensitivity to prompt variation and the rarity of some cues in real interactions (external validity).We compare six commonly used persona cues across seven open and proprietary LLMs on four writing and advice tasks.While cues are overall highly correlated, they produce substantial variance in responses across personas that can change findings on persona-induced differences and bias.We therefore caution against claims based on single persona cues, especially when they are overly explicit and have low external validity.
Franziska Weeber, Vera Neplenbroek, Jan Batzner, Sebastian Padó
ACL (1)2
2025 Reading Between the Prompts: How Stereotypes Shape LLM's Implicit Personalization
abstract
Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) infer user's demographic information from subtle cues in the conversation -a phenomenon called implicit personalization.Prior work has shown that such inferences can lead to lower quality responses for users assumed to be from minority groups, even when no demographic information is explicitly provided.In this work, we systematically explore how LLMs respond to stereotypical cues using controlled synthetic conversations, by analyzing the models' latent user representations through both model internals and generated answers to targeted user questions.Our findings reveal that LLMs do infer demographic attributes based on these stereotypical signals, which for a number of groups even persists when the user explicitly identifies with a different demographic group.Finally, we show that this form of stereotypedriven implicit personalization can be effectively mitigated by intervening on the model's internal representations using a trained linear probe to steer them toward the explicitly stated identity.Our results highlight the need for greater transparency and control in how LLMs represent user identity.
Vera Neplenbroek, Arianna Bisazza, Raquel Fernández
EMNLP1